Law studies and active learning: friends not foes?

Abstract

Law schools have been criticised as being behind the times in predominantly adhering to the traditional lecture format combined with the casebook method. In so far as these techniques simply transmit prescribed content to students, this comes at the expense of teaching the skill crucial for success in examinations and in legal practice: problem solving. Active teaching and learning techniques seem likely to better foster the development of this skill. However, in an environment where transmission-based lectures are the norm, and students are anxious to absorb content in the (mis)belief that this holds the key to success, would they welcome such active learning or resist it? To assess this, I delivered three lectures to second year undergraduate students in the same cohort of the Law of Contract, each of which used varying degrees of active learning techniques: the first, the maximum amount practicable, the second a combination of active learning techniques and techniques traditionally used in law school lectures, and the third no active learning techniques at all. By asking students to comment on the extent to which they were engaged in the lectures and how the use of time enabled them to learn, to understand contract law, and to develop their own problem-solving skills, I aimed to see how they would react to the different techniques. Supported by the qualitative results of this pilot study, the article suggests that (1) the incorporation of active learning exercises – including those based on problems – into large lectures is perceived by students as beneficial for their learning, and even preferred over passive methods; and (2) in the typical law school environment, law teachers could also consciously mitigate the relentless pressures affecting law students by making classes more conversational, relaxed and entertaining.